Re: Will girllovers ever be accepted?

In the anti-contact lexicon, the word "protect" is a euphemism for "denial of civil liberties on an arbitrary basis rather than judging upon individual merit and capability 'for their own good,'" which is utterly draconian and out of place in any society that purports to be democratic.

You know that's bullshit. My proposed system recognizes the individual needs and limitations of kids far more than your blanket liberation does. Democracies are not limitless or unproblematic, Dissident. All forms of gov't have inherent limitations.

The majority of children may not be able to understand the intricacies of particle physics, but guess what? Neither do I! And neither do the great majority of adults, I'd wager.

Right, which is why neither children nor you are, say, allowed to work on a nuclear reactor. Your rights aren't without limitations either. Nor are mine or anyone else's. You can earn the right to work on nuclear reactor, but that's far different from having a system in which you are granted the right simply because you exist.

The point is, most children at a reasonable age of cognizance are capable of understanding and contemplating the basic bits of knowledge required to rapidly learn concepts and to directly participate in the democratic process. It's interesting how the protectionists and anti-contact pundits like to ignore the examples of the Sudbury school campuses. Then again, ignoring facts that undermine their ideology is necessary for the anti-contact and protectionist view to have any pretense towards validity. A viewpoint based mostly on emotion rather than logic and reason tends to have that problem.

Well then, why don't you tell me exactly what the "reasonable age of cognizance" is. Pinpoint it exactly for me, will you? Then we'll talk. I ignore nothing. I frequently post articles here and at DU about the accomplishments of minors who have defied expectations, and I'm very proud of them for that. I fully acknowledge and even trumpet the fact that some kids are more than capable of handling themselves in an adult arena. But it's a grave mistake to stretch that argument to all kids of all ages, intellectual and social capabilities.

Um, Lat, what do you think Dr. Robert Epstein has proposed? Have you bothered to read his book Teen 2.0 yet? If not, I highly recommend it to you. And have you not heard me and many other pro-choicers frequently saying that kids should be judged based upon their individual merits and capabilities? How often does this have to be said around here for you to "get" it?

I like Epstein and agree with him in large part that adolescence is a stupid and mostly unnecessary distinction. I haven't read Teen 2.0 yet, but I'd like to. I have a long backlog of books I need/want to read, and unfortunately that one's far down on the list. I do NOT often hear you or others talk about kids being judged on individual merits; what I usually hear are statements of blanket liberation. If your system is more like the one I propose, then I can support it. But I don't recall you talking about such a system.

However, I will say two other things that should be noted here. One of them is that I believe (as does Dr. Epstein, btw) that there are some rights that kids should be afforded regardless of proven merits, such as the right not to be forced to adhere to one particular religion or political ideology and the right to freedom of speech.

Yes, I fully agree with him on that.

Second, please keep this in mind: legal adults are allowed to vote and do any number of things regardless of individual merits and capabilities. Once you reach the Magic Age, you are almost always given the benefit of the doubt in regards to basic competence in doing almost everything unless extenuating circumstances arise (e.g., extreme incapacitation due to alcoholism or severe mental illness). Hence, while I do not believe that the requirement of competency tests is ideal, it is nevertheless a good step in the right direction that will allow many kids to prove their capabilities and possibly provide a good deal of evidence towards further liberation in the future.

But in my system you would have to earn you rights regardless of age, and you couldn't have them until you earned them. As I said, I don't believe rights are inherent; they are a gift of the enlightened system in which we live. If you don't have a modicum of understanding about how the gov't works, you shouldn't be able to vote, whether you're 10, 30 or 50.